• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

The Telegraph: "Benefits cheat who couldn't walk caught hiking with dogs"

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
It can be hard to explain disability levels on these forms, and I worry that I could be covertly filmed in a way that makes it seem as if I've lied...

but three mile walks?!? That's some pretty clear cut dishonesty.

it's still annoying that the media is so much keener to cover these cases, than when those with serious health problems being wrongly turned down for benefits, which seems to be a much more widespread problem. To be honest, the benefits system is now so vile now that I feel it's increasingly difficult to blame those who do lie on their forms. It's really difficult to work out the way of telling the truth which will mean that you get treated fairly, requiring all sorts of convoluted word play and semantics... I can understand why some genuinely ill people give up and just lie instead.
 

Calathea

Senior Member
Messages
1,261
I know someone with moderate ME who doesn't pace herself in the way that you'd expect, and has probably done the odd three-mile walk over the last few years. She's also spent a lot of time in a wheelchair, and tends to crash very hard after overexertion, with her ups and downs being much greater than that of most people I know. Some people do vary enormously.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Mild to moderate ME does allow some walking. When under an experimental protocol in 1999 I increased my energy (but my fatigue was untouched) to the point where I could walk for five HOURS. The high energy only lasted a couple of days (although the protocol took weeks to get me to this point) and then I was forced to stop the protocol due to side effects (severe daily headaches). Similarly on one of my ten or so good days in twenty years, I was able to walk and probably run (but didn't) for miles. These days are rare (e.g. one day only in twenty years). Our illness fluctuates. If you suddently found yourself having a good day, it would be very tempting to go out and have a walk.

On the other hand there will be an investigation. Its also possible that the newspaper got it right. I just worry that they will use the wrong methods for investigating this person, and draw the wrong conclusions. Its not like the authorities have a track record of knowing how to assess us.

Bye, Alex
 

maddietod

Senior Member
Messages
2,860
Do you think anybody outside the CFS/ME community understands the concept: I took a walk and then had to go back to bed to recover? Can you imagine what would have happened to her benefits if she had "admitted" that she was better enough to walk her dog, as long as she went back to bed after? That she was still disabled but had a carer (husband) living with her now?

We have a disease that is incomprehensible to the general public. I wish her all the luck in the world.
 

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
I certainly think that someone can be seriously ill and still be able to sometimes walk three miles.

The benefits system is ridiculous, particularly when it comes to dealing with variable and ill-defined conditions like CFS, but if one can choose to take ones dog for a three mile walk then it's difficult to see how one could also claim to be 'unable or virtually unable to walk'. It could well be that we're getting a skewed view of things through the media, but she did plead guilty.
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
Of course, these are the stories that the media picked up on. It makes the rest of us look bad.
No paper will pick up my story where I was fighting to keep my disability benefits and saw in their files (which by law they have to provide) that they had me followed 3 times. (I had no idea that I was followed) They couldn't find anything. They sat in a car (van?) across the street and took notes on who came in or left from my house. They didn't find anything yet, they declined my claim anyway. My doctor wrote them that I can't be active at all and I had tons of evidence yet it didn't matter. Why did they decline me ? Because they could. They could lie and cheat and there's nothing I can d about it. I would like to see my story in the papers.
 

Wonko

Senior Member
Messages
1,467
Location
The other side.
Up until a few years ago I could walk more than 3 miles on an irregular basis (ie I couldnt do it every day but could a couple of times a week on non consecutive days), I could keep this up for a few weeks before the consequences got unmanageable. Around the same time I also had 8 months where I couldnt walk at all without severe pain and couldnt even step up a kerb without it crippling me.

The next year as a result of medical "advice" I walked five to six miles a day, five days a week, it took me all day, literally, seven to eight hours, and I've been told I was virtually unconcious and incomprehensible when I got back. Never the less I managed to keep this up for just over 3 weeks until I got up one morning and fell over a few minutes later due to excrusiating pain, I couldnt stand, even supported, for over a week and couldnt stand unsupported for several months afterwards. Most of the time now the thought of walking even to the local bus stop (about 150m now, they keep moving it further away, when I moved here it was only 50m away) is a problem and anything more than 100m from a bus stop isnt going to happen.

My point? ME is so variable, and unpredictable, that there is no way I would say someone who has been seen walking 3 miles definately doesnt have ME, TBH it wouldnt even enter my head. I'm not entirely sure that a couple of rottweilers is the ideal choice of pet for someone with ME tho. It does slightly aggrivate me that she was gettign high rate mobility when I cant even get lower rate and "apparently" is much more able to "mobilise" than I am, But thats probably just petty jealously on my part.
 

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
I think (as I have said elsewhere) that as this lady admitted her guilt as did her own defence lawyer it has little to do with her diagnosis at the time she made the claim.

She was claiming higher rate mobility for Disability Living Allowance! Her lawyer said she should have told them when she felt she had recovered. I mean we're talking years here and not a fluctuation.

Some have drawn attention to this article because she had (at the time - years ago) a diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Personally I think this does no harm to our condition and drawing attention to it runs the risk of making something out of nothing.

She was guilty. She was defrauding the system. There were people with CFS who were in genuine need of these payments. I have no sympathy for her at all. The system used to be that once awarded such a benefit there was very little (if any) follow up.

Now of course it's changed. With the 'new' Personal Independence Payment I understand (from memory) we will be assessed every 12 months to ensure our claim equates with our state of health. Rather like Employment Support Allowance.

Examples like the behaviour of this woman play right into the hands of those driving these expensive reforms through the system and ramming them down our throats. They are bound to attract quotes from the government and make the headlines. It is seen to validate their actions.

No sympathy.
 

currer

Senior Member
Messages
1,409
I would not rush to judge someone on the basis of an article in the Telegraph, a paper that has become increasingly tabloid in late years. The whole truth is unlikely to be here.

But dont worry Firestormm, soon there will be no benefits system, the Telegraph will have its wish, and the rich and powerful press barons and their backers, an endless supply of cheap, vulnerable and powerless labour.
 

ukxmrv

Senior Member
Messages
4,413
Location
London
There does tend to be a pattern in some of these "benefit cheats" newspaper reports of someone who was entitled intitially to DLA and then who did not report a change in their health or circumstances.

It must be hard for people who are not able to work, surviving on a benefit or with no other income apart from DLA, then have an improvement but maybe not enough to work, to accept that they should have a cut in their DLA. It sounded as if she could not walk at one point and then improved.

She married during the time she was disabled and unable to work. It must be hard to have no income and be dependant on someone else. Being married or living with a partner isn't a factor in DLAs as it's not means tested. She may have not wanted to tell the DWP about her personal life. Benefit claims are intrusive enough and her being married was irrelevant to the DLA anyway.

As she improved on medication (and I wonder what this was?) she may have started enjoying her health again and being able to walk. She may have also wondered how long it was going to last (the better health) and also worried about surviving without the extra money.

Did she have years without the proper DLA payments at the start of her illness. Took me years to get DLA and I survived 2 tribunels. Would not want to face that again.

The newspaper report didn't say how often she was videoed walking the dogs and over what sort of period. She claims to have to go back to bed after. Was she overdoing it and crashing? Had she just started doing this or been doing it for years? Had she been encouraged to walk by someone like this.

I'm not defending dishonest people just trying to put myself in her shoes. As a care worker her pay would not have been very high. I could return to a really well paid job and there are enormous benefits to me from doing this. She may have faced returning to the minimum wage and an uncertain job market and the worry if her health would last.
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
Telegraph = pondslime, up market "The Sun", that is all.
(not like there's almost any newspaper in UK on any side, worth being used for more than toilet paper! :p)

So, they blow stories like this up to hell, so they can end the Welfare system, while just ONE tax evasion bullshit scam by one bank, was worth 500 million
who's the real scum and enemy of society?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17181213

Barclays Bank told by Treasury to pay 500m avoided taxContinue reading the main story Barclays
Last Updated at 28 Feb 2012, 16:30

Big Banking
HSBC annual profits reach 13.8bn
Lloyds makes 3.5bn annual loss
RBS bank's loss doubles in 2011
Credit Agricole has 3bn-euro loss


Barclays Bank has been ordered by the Treasury to pay half-a-billion pounds in tax which it had tried to avoid.

Barclays was accused by HM Revenue and Customs of designing and using two schemes that were intended to avoid substantial amounts of tax.

The government has taken the unusual step of introducing retrospective legislation to end such "aggressive tax avoidance" by financial institutions.

Tax rules forced the bank to tell the authorities about its plans.

The government has closed the schemes to retrieve 500m of lost tax and safeguard payments of billions of more tax in the future.

BBC business editor Robert Peston has been told by Barclays that it is surprised by HMRC's reaction to the two schemes, which it believed to be in line with those used by other banks.

Our business editor says it is highly embarrassing for Barclays, because Britain's big banks have all signed a code committing them not to engage in tax avoidance.

However, he adds that Barclays may end up paying no more than 150m of additional tax.

'Decision justified'

Announcing the crackdown, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke, said the bank should never have devised the schemes in the first place.


Business editor, BBC News

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read Robert Peston's blog

"The bank that disclosed these schemes to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has adopted the Banking Code of Practice on Taxation which contains a commitment not to engage in tax avoidance," he said.

"The government is clear that these are not transactions that a bank that has adopted the code should be undertaking.

"We do not take today's action lightly, but the potential tax loss from this scheme and the history of previous abuse in this area mean that this is a circumstance where the decision to change the law with full retrospective effect is justified."

One tax scheme involved Barclays claiming it should not have to pay corporation tax on profits made when buying back its own IOUs.

The second tax avoidance scheme, also designed by Barclays, involved investment funds claiming that non-taxable income entitled the funds to tax credits that could be reclaimed from HMRC.

The Treasury described this as "an attempt to secure 'repayment' from the Exchequer of tax that has not been paid".

Forced disclosure

A Treasury source suggested that outlawing the tax schemes immediately would save the government a further 2bn in tax that would otherwise have been foregone.

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote
Banks are simply not going to be able to get away with it
End Quote
David Gauke

Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury

Barclays disclosed the two schemes to the tax authorities under rules which have been in place since 2004.

Anyone, such as a bank, accountant, lawyer or tax adviser, who devises a seemingly legal tax avoidance plan, is obliged to tell the tax authorities about it within a few days of using it or marketing it to clients.

More than 2,000 schemes have been disclosed in the past eight years.

Mr Gauke told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the experience of Barclays showed that the system of compulsory disclosure for legal tax avoidance schemes was working.

"They have got caught, they disclosed this information, the HMRC has acted very quickly, there will be no benefit to the bank, they are clearly taking a substantial reputational hit and we have demonstrated that banks are simply not going to be able to get away with it," he said.

John Whiting, of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT), said: "Quite a few of the disclosures have come from banks in the past.

"They [the schemes] are usually intended for sale to others such as clients."

Tax obligations

The banking code on taxation was first introduced by the Labour government in June 2009.

Stephen Herring, BDO Stoy Hayward: "This is not to do with tax evasion"
It followed reports that some big banks used large scale tax avoidance schemes involving complex transactions and financial instruments.

The code - which was supported by the incoming coalition government the following year - demands that banks which sign ensure that their tax and the tax obligations of their customers are observed.

It says they should not go out of their way to avoid tax for themselves or clients.

The 15 biggest banks operating in the UK have signed up.

'Treated even-handedly'

In a separate development, HMRC said it would appoint a senior official to act as an "assurance commissioner" for any tax deals struck with big companies for more than 100m.

The job of the commissioner will be to make sure taxpayers in general do not suffer from any such settlements.

The move follows severe criticism last December from MPs on the Public Accounts Committee who denounced HMRC for appearing to cut contentious tax deals with companies such as Vodafone and Goldman Sachs.

Lin Homer, the new HMRC chief executive said: "This commissioner will take the role of challenging whether any proposed settlement secured the correct amount of tax efficiently and that taxpayers had been treated even-handedly.

"The commissioner will also make sure that the governance procedures have been followed," she added
 

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
I would not rush to judge someone on the basis of an article in the Telegraph, a paper that has become increasingly tabloid in late years. The whole truth is unlikely to be here.

But dont worry Firestormm, soon there will be no benefits system, the Telegraph will have its wish, and the rich and powerful press barons and their backers, an endless supply of cheap, vulnerable and powerless labour.

The story was originally posted in the Derby Telegraph (a local paper) and then taken on by the Daily Telegraph complete. It reported the court case with quotes from her own defence lawyer. She admitted guilt. She also lied about her co-habitation.

Don't get me wrong, the reforms of the benefit system are deplorable. What is expected from the sick and disabled is beyond belief at times. I should know. But this story did not make a big deal about her diagnosis i.e. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It wasn't singling her out for that - unlike other opinion pieces of late.

I just don't think drawing attention to her diagnosis as some folk have and saying that this story of fraud somehow denigrates our condition, will do anything but be counter-productive. She had been claiming High Rate Disability for years Currer.

We were saying elsewhere that one thing it did raise concerns over is when exactly - given the nature of our condition - we would be expected to inform the DWP of any relative improvement. There seems to be little guidance on this. I mean would you wait a fortnight, a month, two months just to ensure you weren't about to relapse, before reporting you were out of bed and able to get about a little easier? Before thinking that being able to brush your teeth without pain was an improvement? When?

If I went from being in bed to being able to walk for X number of miles and was still on high rate disability, I would be reporting it. As well as jumping for joy! But at what point do you report a relative improvement? When you no longer meet one of the descriptors? When?
 

Boule de feu

Senior Member
Messages
1,118
Location
Ottawa, Canada
I saw this article yesterday and I did not think much of it.

As someone mentioned it earlier, there are crooks and con artists everywhere (I'm not saying she is!) but it has nothing to do with us and our illness.

But one point comes up, and I don't know if everyone else feels the same.
When I do have a good day and i'm up to it to do something in the house, I start feeling guilty being at home when I could be at work. Or I wonder, what would it be like to meet someone at a restaurant when I feel better? They would probably judge me on my appearance. "She looks too well to be that sick!..." What they don't know is that I had to cancel 4 or 5 times before being able to do this and I will be in bed for at least 5 days (if not more) afterwards.

However, it's feeling guilty about going out + worrying that someone will get the wrong impression (when I finally do venture out) that really bothers me.

Another problem with surveillance is that we get filmed when we do feel better. We would not go out if we were too sick to get out of bed. They always get us during our "best moments". I try to go for a walk right after a long afternoon nap, otherwise I can't make it to the corner of my street.
 

currer

Senior Member
Messages
1,409
I suppose I find these tabloid articles very distasteful (as well as being in bad taste)

I dislike holding people up for judgement, I dislike prying into peoples' most personal suffering.

It is worth thinking whether there is a good reason to repost them here, and to make that point for discussion clear when reposting.
Otherwise I find the reposting of such sad stories prurient and insensitive.

Am I the only one who finds stories of poor ME sufferers dying horribly and pointlessly, unpleasant to read on this forum?
Is it because I have been involved in ME advocacy for twenty years, have read and re read these stories, (as well as being persopnally involved in some) and find this focus on them sensationalist and unproductive?
Is it because nothing has changed in all that time?

I dont enjoy it.
 
Messages
877
Its possible the lady is disabled. Hard to say without a test for physical and cognitive aspects.

I used to run with ME. I had chest pain, couldn't see straight, and my brain was numb, but I could do it.

The hardest part for me is THe mental stuff. Everytime I post here, I have to log in again becasue it takes so long.

I can;t even remember all my symptoms because they come and go, fluctuate, and increase or decrease from minute to minute.

I can see how one can mis-state ones abilities. Epsecially the way those sheets are worded from disability.
 

Boule de feu

Senior Member
Messages
1,118
Location
Ottawa, Canada
I suppose I find these tabloid articles very distasteful (as well as being in bad taste)

I dislike holding people up for judgement, I dislike prying into peoples' most personal suffering.

It is worth thinking whether there is a good reason to repost them here, and to make that point for discussion clear when reposting.
Otherwise I find the reposting of such sad stories prurient and insensitive.

Am I the only one who finds stories of poor ME sufferers dying horribly and pointlessly, unpleasant to read on this forum?
Is it because I have been involved in ME advocacy for twenty years, have read and re read these stories, (as well as being persopnally involved in some) and find this focus on them sensationalist and unproductive?
Is it because nothing has changed in all that time?

I dont enjoy it.

It's sad to say, but sometimes this is what it takes for some people to get involved in advocacy... :-(
 
Messages
877
OK. Read the first paragraph of the article. this is probably more propaganda. Make doctors and people wonder if we are faking it.

Subtle isn't it?

They select a lady who was complaining of fatigue or lack of mobility, and then how she was out walking her dog sometime later. Isn't that the perfect article for judges and government disability review employees to see......
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
OK. Read the first paragraph of the article. this is probably more propaganda. Make doctors and people wonder if we are faking it.

Subtle isn't it?

They select a lady who was complaining of fatigue or lack of mobility, and then how she was out walking her dog sometime later. Isn't that the perfect article for judges and government disability review employees to see......

Exactly!

as I posted in other thread

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness.
Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness.
Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate

That's from very famous book on war, but, it lays the basis for other forms of conflict/control (damn good read actually), and alas, scumbags, especially certian types, use it a lot
"The Prince" and "Art of War" are read by corporates and psychobabblers, and Public Relations etc

Also as I keep saying, as one infamous bag-le-douche said, if you tell a big enough lie, often enough, most folk will believe you.
Alas, it's true. So, our twisted media is hammering on such cases
it's like how they also hyped child abduction/murder by some deranged lunatic, every parent is terrified of such, so it makes great sales for the paper...but reality is, it's INCREDIBLY rare.
We've got 65 million people in UK, so yes, you will have some freaks out there, biggest risks to kids are their own damn family though by many ordersof magnitude, not "stranger danger", always has been.
But it sells newspapers so hey they don't care.


On the main point, after a shower I take Poppy a walk, usually about 400 to 600 yards, doesn't damn well mean I cna work, I can walk that far once a damn day.
On a rare "very good day" I can walk up to a mile, but that's literal handful of days in a year and I have to walk very slowly.